Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:06:00 -
[121] - Quote
Nekopyat wrote:
Well, that is kinda what CCP is going for. They like the blackmail mechanic and usually just say that you should hire a merc corp (because apparently casual indy players are rolling in ISK... *looks sadly at wallet*) or 'go out and fight'.
Nay, CCP is certain that "The White Knights, Inc" is going to help out all the smaller fishes in distress just for fun, assured PvP and out of their golden hearts. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
gfldex
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:07:00 -
[122] - Quote
Dirk Space wrote:Quote: Just because some people want to bully the little guy, the carebear, someone who just wants to log on and make stuff, how does that make the war dec system justifiable?
Nobody in this thread has given (in fact I doubt nobody can give) a valid reason as to why the war dec system sxists, except to grief people.
Wardecs where introduced as a compromise of another compromise. The latter is the existence of CONCORD. In the very beginning there was no CONCORD nor station guns.
As undocking could take you longer then 30 sec to load the scene (the servers nowadays are brilliant compared to what we used to have) and as a result cunning individuals farmed noobs, actions had to be taken. Instead of solving the problem to get out of a station without getting blown to smithereens CCP decided adding some NPCs that stop such attacks would be wise. It was for sure easier (read: faster) to implement.
Since EVE was (was!) centered around non-consentional PvP the wardec system was added to the game to allow corps in highsec to fight over resources. Yes, you are supposed to fight for what you own. That may even mean you have to work together with capable players.
That's why wardecs are there. The comfort zone that highsec became with the privateer-nerf was never meant to be there in the first place. Now that will be fixed.
And demanding the game to be easy, no matter for that char age, is whining. Esp. if there are very viable options for your to opt-out of combat against players.
You seam to have problems to understand what grief play really is: here a incomplete list. Driving your little corp out of business (read: make your members join proper corps instead) is not griefplay by any means.
You are solo? NPC corps are your salvation. If that means you can't have that ISK printing machine that is your highsec research POS, we will be fine with that. More money for those who can actually defend their business. (Or have friends that can.)
Goons are the 3%. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
18
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:08:00 -
[123] - Quote
Still loving how nobody is realizing just how badly the "unlimited allies" thing will f-up wars. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
786
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:10:00 -
[124] - Quote
"If you are engaged in a war that you declared, you cannot join an alliance until that war is finished."
This is a good thing, because it will eliminate one of the possible loopholes. However, I also suggest that if the alliance itself has a declared (outbound) war that it is not allowed to take on new corporations until the war is over.
"Once youGÇÖre an ally, youGÇÖre committed to the war until it ends."
This is problematic. It means that a mercenary corporation could find itself drawn into a very long-term contract with now way to force the ally who hired them to continue paying each week. Ally contracts should be auto-renewing and if the employer does not pay the fee to the mercenary each week, the mercenary is allowed to leave.
Alternately, I think mercenary hire contracts should have to be renewed each week, with the option for either side to decline the extension or to renegotiate the amount paid.
|
Dierdra Vaal
Veto. Veto Corp
129
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:12:00 -
[125] - Quote
Quote:Q: Paying mercs? A: The ally contract will enforce a one time payment up front. Other deals (like for length of war, reimburse losses or per kill) is between the defender and the merc and is not enforced by the system.
Are you saying by this that allies that join a war are NOT locked into that war for the duration? Afterall, the defender has 0.0 influence over the length of the war.
Quote:Q: Defender taking over wars? A: We've contemplated similar things, but ended up deciding it would complicate the system too much. If the defender is really keen on getting back at the aggressor, he can simply war dec him.
This isn't so much about the defender getting back at him, so please do not try to spin it that way. It is about the defender having control of the wardec under certain circumstances. This gives them the ability to either end the wardec (which most defenders will want to do) or continue it.
Given your responses, can you answer the following questions:
Would you not agree that the wardec system continues to be a simple "pay to grief" system, because players can become locked into a playstyle they did not choose and do not enjoy, without a direct way of changing that situation? If you agree, why is this good for Eve and it's players? If you do not agree, why not?
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
579
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:12:00 -
[126] - Quote
I was going to say something about : What stops 1 privateer alliance from war deccing 1000 small entities?
But... I realized that then you can bring 1000 allies into the fight that can fight and kill them all. The question is if that's what will happen?
I'm curious to see this now.
Don't change a thing.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:13:00 -
[127] - Quote
Lord Helghast wrote:Dirk Space wrote:Yiole Gionglao wrote:Please, i have a question! If i am in a miner corp and someone wardecs us solely to prevent us from playing the game, how exactly can we avoid being at war and keep playing w/o surrendering to blackmail or dismantling our corporation? Thank you in advance! You can't, don't worry about it though, the bullies and griefers will get what they want, that's how eve works, remember. seems logical, HIRE A MERC CORP TO PROTECT YOU I mean honestly, there adding a system that allows you to litteral hire "body guards" and yet your still lost?
Well, of course, because hisec miners roll in money!
It would be nice, hisec miners being forced to bot to pay for defending themselves from wardecs...
Oh, and what about casual players, who run a couple missions a week? And general solo palyers?
What about everyfuckingbody who CHOOSES to stay away from PvP? EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
gfldex
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:13:00 -
[128] - Quote
Arrs Grazznic wrote: The problem with this is that a 10 man corp can be decced by an 8,000 member alliance for 25m, but if the 10 man corp wanted to dec the alliance it would cost over 4b isk. There is no symmetry in this -- you really need to factor in the aggressor size into the formula.
They are not going to do that because it would mean privateers would come back. Those fellow highsec pirates had simply to much fun blowing folk up in Jita. (And they where not really fighting for anythign but the lolz.) Goons are the 3%. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:15:00 -
[129] - Quote
gfldex wrote:PLAY MY WAY OR GO AWAY!
Words of wisdom never heard before... EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
299
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:19:00 -
[130] - Quote
Individual pilots dropping a war-decced corp:
Create an individual surrender fee of 500k isk. Aggressor corps can directly recoup their costs and successful defender corps can pile on the pain. |
|
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Defiant Legacy
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:20:00 -
[131] - Quote
Dirk Space wrote: If non-consensual pvp is what everyone wants, removal of the war dec system would mean that the bullies using war decs to kill industry ships would have to move to low-sec or null-sec, which would mean they would be on an even footing with people that are capable of fighting back.
Say I want to kill you (it's tempting).
I can suicide gank your industry ships. I can do that at any time, anywhere, with no advance warning. The consequence of my actions would be losing my ship(s) to Concord.
Or I could declare war on you. I would not lose my ship(s) to Concord. You would, however, have the opportunity to see me coming and run away.
Low-sec and null-sec take away the Concord part and null-sec takes away the need to declare war. |
Arrs Grazznic
Poena Executive Solutions
23
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:20:00 -
[132] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Arrs Grazznic wrote: The problem with this is that a 10 man corp can be decced by an 8,000 member alliance for 25m, but if the 10 man corp wanted to dec the alliance it would cost over 4b isk. There is no symmetry in this -- you really need to factor in the aggressor size into the formula.
They are not going to do that because it would mean privateers would come back. Those fellow highsec pirates had simply to much fun blowing folk up in Jita. (And they where not really fighting for anythign but the lolz.) I have no problem with the 10 man corp having to pay the 4b isk to dec the large origanisation. For me the problem is the cost to the large alliance is so small it is irrelevant. A large corp / alliance could effectively perma-dec many smaller 10 man corps for ***** and giggles and not notices the cost.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Standards and Practices
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:20:00 -
[133] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Lord Helghast wrote:Dirk Space wrote:Yiole Gionglao wrote:Please, i have a question! If i am in a miner corp and someone wardecs us solely to prevent us from playing the game, how exactly can we avoid being at war and keep playing w/o surrendering to blackmail or dismantling our corporation? Thank you in advance! You can't, don't worry about it though, the bullies and griefers will get what they want, that's how eve works, remember. seems logical, HIRE A MERC CORP TO PROTECT YOU I mean honestly, there adding a system that allows you to litteral hire "body guards" and yet your still lost? Well, of course, because hisec miners roll in money! It would be nice, hisec miners being forced to bot to pay for defending themselves from wardecs... Oh, and what about casual players, who run a couple missions a week? And general solo palyers? What about everyfuckingbody who CHOOSES to stay away from PvP?
Part of avoiding a wardec is keeping a low profile. I have ran in many corps that may receive a dec once or twice a year which is pretty good as we still generally have 50 weeks to ourselves. Remember, a griefers vision is based on sight and your activity seen here and presumably in game are like shouting through a bullhorn for the eye. |
Alastar Frost
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:21:00 -
[134] - Quote
One of the concerns brought up at fanfest was: How does this system make the agressor commited to the war?
This is a big question. If you have the isk and an alt corp, you can just prolong the war without even fighting. but you can dock some of your people in the area where the defender has his base and pose a constand threat (like afk cloackers do in nullsec with the threat of having a cyno and bringing in a huge force).
This is a problem if you have pvpers and miners which you can not really protect 24/7. This can hurt a PvE or industry corp a lot.
This is one of the main reasons to declare a war: look for easy targets and hide if they start to bring in PvP ships to fight back.
One Idea i came up with to make the agressor commit to the war and bring a fight:
Partys in a war have a "commited" flag. This is set by the following rules: Agressor is commited. Defender is not commited, unless he declares the war mutual. Allys brought into the war are commited.
What does that flag do? If you are commited and a wartarget is in system, no station manager will allow you to dock. Only exception: you are in a pod. Your ship will send a locator signal which allows to scan you down with a ship scanner. This gives a warping 50-250km off your positon. If you are cloacked, the distances are reduced (to allow sweeping the space to find the ship). The warpin is some distance off to give the chance to flee, but you will be chased until you can make it into a system without wartargets.
What should that do? You can not dock and log off in areas where the opponend is based if you are commited. You can not play docking games as a commited party. You can be found easiely as a commited party. It gives the defender the means to control actions of the aggressor (if you hang out in his base systems, he can either stay docked or come to a fight, but not much in between) and come up with defence strategies.
Why are allys commited? They are brought in to fight, so they will be under the same rules as the agressor. If a pvp corp declares a war, another pvp corp can join on the defender side to get a fight. but then they should bring a fight and not hide. It will also make an ally think about the situation before signing in for a war. |
Orisa Medeem
Hedion University Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:22:00 -
[135] - Quote
Quote: Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier? A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone
Two ideas about it: - measuring the size of the defender by counting the numbers of members is good, but not ideal. Maybe you could measure this with some sort of activity rating based on a few metrics, i.e., amount of time the members spend 'doing stuff'. You don't need to update these metrics in real time either. - the cost increase doesn't need to be a linear function. A good alternative could be C * (N^0.8), where C is a constant and N is the defending entity size. This makes attacking large corps/alliances still an option. :sand: -áover -á:awesome: |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:23:00 -
[136] - Quote
My biggest concern is that the defender can bring in unlimited allies at only the cost of what the allies want. While this works in subset of situations involving mercs, the reality is that a lot of people have actual allies who would join the war for free if possible. Not only that, I would bet that a good number of people (namely griefers and dec corps) would be willing to join these wars for free, so that they get tons of free decs, which has the ability to completely undermine the whole 'merc as a career path' thing.
Furthermore, not limiting the number of allies that a defender can bring in, either by strict limit or financially, makes it so that the aggressor can never make a calculated decision as to whether or not the war is actually worth their money. To address this, I'd like to see two things implemented as caveats of the ally system:
1) In addition to any contract between the defender and the ally (in terms of ISK), the defender must also pay an 'ally fee' equivalent to the dec fee the aggressor paid to bring in an allied entity. This price increases with the appropriate modifier (20m if defender is a corp, 50m if defender is an alliance) for every ally brought in. This has the handy side effect of adding more ISK sinks \o/
2) Put a strict limit on the number of allies a defender can bring into the war. I'm thinking three (3) is a pretty fair number.
In all honesty, I'd be happy if just the first suggestion was implemented, and the second would be cake. That's mostly because the first one implements the second in form of financial restrictions, which is honestly a better solution than a strict number, because it's more 'sandboxy.'
As a side note the idea of allies joining the war in less than 24 hours is pretty terrible. The biggest advantage of the 24-hour timer is that everyone gets a decent notification period that new entities are entering the war. Since you are, in essence, declaring a new on the aggressor for each of the allies, it is reasonable that they actually have fair warning. |
Andrea Griffin
211
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:25:00 -
[137] - Quote
Dierdra Vaal wrote:As such I'd suggest the following changes/additions to the system proposed in the devblog: 1) The attacking corp/alliance starts with an 'ISK deficit' equal to the cost of the wardec. 2) In order to keep control of the wardec, they need to inflict at least that much damage on their target corp/alliance 3) At the end of each war week, when the new bill is due, the system evaluates if the attacking corp is ahead on ISK damage 4) Any wars that are not renewed are followed by a period of peace between the two entities equal to the length of the war. Something like this could be interesting, because there is an incentive for the defender to get out and start shooting stuff. Thing is, since most high-sec PvP is people with expensive ships harassing carebears. If the defending corp has an incentive to get a dozen gank destroyers and pop the aggressor's Vindicator Of Death or something in an attempt to control the war so it can be ended, then I see that as a Really Good Thing. It's something the defender of a war doesn't have right now: A way to end it.
CCP Sreegs is my favorite developer. |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:26:00 -
[138] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Well, of course, because hisec miners roll in money! It would be nice, hisec miners being forced to bot to pay for defending themselves from wardecs... Oh, and what about casual players, who run a couple missions a week? And general solo palyers? What about everyfuckingbody who CHOOSES to stay away from PvP?
I think this is part of the perception problem that really needs to be taken into account. Casual players tend to have little ISK. Personally I can maybe manage 1-2 missions per week and maybe a few hours of mining. I don't have the cash (or cashflow) for a dickstar and last time I did put up a POS I didn't even know about the wardec before it was blown apart (not everyone can sign on every few hours to get those notifications). Crow, even something as simple as email notification (rather then EvE's internal mail system) would help there....
The current wardec system pretty much stops me from doing POS stuff, and my light schedule keeps me out of 'real' corps which generally require much more of a time commitment then many casual players can handle.
If I was less honest, I would look at botting, since that is the only way I could actually have the resources that people tend to assume I must have.... |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1640
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:26:00 -
[139] - Quote
Besbin wrote:Cosmetic suggestion:
Change the term "Killmail" to "Kill Report" to reflect the new setup.
It will no longer be just a mail and it will then be analogous to the "War Report".
I like this idea <3
I wish I came up with it myself CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @katrinat |
|
Kurai Okala
Okala Corp
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:27:00 -
[140] - Quote
I am wondering why the "Ally Contract" doesn't have any options for expiration. Won't Merc Corps demand stupidly high prices since that initial lump sum might pay for a week, a month or a year of their service?
I guess it does give Merc Corps extra incentive to ruin the aggressors so they end the war quickly but I thought you wanted reputation to serve as that incentive for Mercs? |
|
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:27:00 -
[141] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:gfldex wrote:PLAY MY WAY OR GO AWAY! Words of wisdom never heard before...
EvE way or the highway.
|
Mavrix Able
Cadre Assault Force Initiative Mercenaries
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:29:00 -
[142] - Quote
Hey, I must admit I havent read all the replies, but a good chunk of them and here is my take:
Problems:
- Big fish can dec and sustain wars against smaller fish easily due to the general wealth of a big fish and the cheap dec cost of the small fish.
- Small guys can't harass the big guys due to massive costs (this is what I used to do back in the days, being in a small corp, wrecking the 0.0 alliances hi-sec logistics.)
- Boring the enemy into undeccing is often the only solution for small fish.
Alright, crazy idea time:
- All war-decs must come with a "Terms of Surrender". If you want to start a war you list the ISK you demand for it to stop. If the demand is met the war stops with a 1 hour grace period.
"But what stops a corp from demanding a gazillion ISK that the defender can never pay?"
- When declaring and renewing a war dec, the agressor must pay an amount of ISK proportional to the amount of ISK demanded in the "terms of surrender."
Thats the basics of it, there are of course options to be toyed with:
- There could be a period after surrender where the defender cant be decced by the same corp again, although that brings it own lot of corp hopping problems.
- The war cost and upkeep could involve an escrow system, where the dec price and cost are kept standard, but the "Terms of Surrender" demand fee and ukeep is taken into escrow during the war and returned after.
The concept here is that by effectively freezing the agressors ISK during a war, rather than simply taking them, you can make all sorts of expontial systems to make the dec cost of long wars (read harassment wars you cant get out of) outlandishly high as long as the war is on without it being unfair as the ISK are returned when the war ends.
- When trying to neutral remote rep a war-agressed player you get a message saying "This player is currently agressed in acts of war, if you wish to assist you must pay [x amount of ISK proportional to the dec/upkeep cost.] for a temporary participation license."
This system has a series of effects I consider good (digging the lists here):
- Red vs Blue; Red can dec Blue with a demand of 1 ISK, that will set them back a tiny amount of ISK each week and its business as usual.
- An agressor can opt for a realistic amount for a realistic amount of ISK on the "terms of surrender". This might net them a relatively cheap war dec that can go on for a while or they might actually get the money. (Win or win)
- An agressor can opt for a high amount of ISK on the "Terms of Surrender" which will make it very likely that they control the duration of the war but also very expensive (Or insanely lucrative if the defender actually pays.)
- This means the system prices the wardec according to how hard you want to lock the defender down.
- A rich corp being harassed by a poor could simply pay the cost of getting out.
- A poor corp being harassed by a rich (which sets a high surrender demand) will damage the rich corp financially as the dec runs.
The idea is that if you want to lock that small corp down hard so they cant get out of the wardec and are free for you to harass, you have to pay to the price. And if you are being cheap the defender can simply pay and be immune for atleast a while.
Its not waterproof, but hopefuly it pushes the ball a bit around.
Regards - Mav |
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Defiant Legacy
28
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:29:00 -
[143] - Quote
Nekopyat wrote: Well, that is kinda what CCP is going for. They like the blackmail mechanic and usually just say that you should hire a merc corp (because apparently casual indy players are rolling in ISK... *looks sadly at wallet*) or 'go out and fight'.
"Casual indy players" in their safe high-sec don't appear to have any means of losing ISK. So why don't you have lots? If you aren't losing ISK but aren't making much either - maybe you should look at what you are trying to achieve? |
gfldex
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:30:00 -
[144] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:"If you are engaged in a war that you declared, you cannot join an alliance until that war is finished."
This is a good thing, because it will eliminate one of the possible loopholes. However, I also suggest that if the alliance itself has a declared (outbound) war that it is not allowed to take on new corporations until the war is over.
I don't because it's very easy to get around. The deced corp will start a new corp, join the alliance and move all members over.
Scrapyard Bob wrote: "Once youGÇÖre an ally, youGÇÖre committed to the war until it ends."
This is problematic. It means that a mercenary corporation could find itself drawn into a very long-term contract with now way to force the ally who hired them to continue paying each week.
I like that. Why should a corp be allowed to drive another corp out of business while a merc corp can just back away from the war? If you are the CEO of a merc corp you better know what you are doing or your members will look for a better CEO elsewhere.
Players compete about resources, corps compete about players, alliances compete about corps. (That's one of the reasons why moon goo is just wrong.)
There is a very simple goal behind the proposed war-system that I'm not going to discuss in public. If you want to know you can drop me a mail. Ohh, and you can stop linking halve my posts (slight exaggeration ofc), I know now what you like. And it's getting a little creepy actually. :) Goons are the 3%. |
Micheal Dietrich
Standards and Practices
167
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:31:00 -
[145] - Quote
Nekopyat wrote: The current wardec system pretty much stops me from doing POS stuff, and my light schedule keeps me out of 'real' corps which generally require much more of a time commitment then many casual players can handle.
This is also a misconception. There are quite a few larger corporations in high sec, including alliances, that are not only understanding and flexible with pilots outside affairs, but they also sport a wider range of pilots including solo'rs and pvp'rs. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
579
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:33:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Besbin wrote:Cosmetic suggestion:
Change the term "Killmail" to "Kill Report" to reflect the new setup.
It will no longer be just a mail and it will then be analogous to the "War Report". I like this idea <3 I wish I came up with it myself
This is true to some degree.
I still have new guys go looking int heir mail "Where's my killmail"??
And i have to say... Go into your Character Sheet.
Go to your Kill Logs
Go look up Kills.
lol. It's a misnomer based on the good old days (sigh). But it would be nice to not have to turn to these people and be like. "Urm, it's not really a kill /mail/ anymore"
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:33:00 -
[147] - Quote
Alastar Frost wrote:One of the concerns brought up at fanfest was: How does this system make the agressor commited to the war?
This is a big question. If you have the isk and an alt corp, you can just prolong the war without even fighting. but you can dock some of your people in the area where the defender has his base and pose a constand threat (like afk cloackers do in nullsec with the threat of having a cyno and bringing in a huge force).
This is a problem if you have pvpers and miners which you can not really protect 24/7. This can hurt a PvE or industry corp a lot.(...).
Off-topic History snippet: that strategy was called "Fleet in harbor" and is what eventually gave birth to the juggernaut/battleship class; a ship so powerful that its mere existence was a threat to enemy sail.
That strategy and its legacy ended up in Pearl Harbor, Tarento and the strait of Malaya. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
gfldex
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:37:00 -
[148] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:gfldex wrote:PLAY MY WAY OR GO AWAY! Words of wisdom never heard before...
If would be nice if you could refrain from putting words into my mouth. What I sayed is: PLAY SOMEBODYS WAR OR GO TO NPC CORP (or 0.0 for that matter).
This false quoting is an offense in any decent country for a reason. Goons are the 3%. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:39:00 -
[149] - Quote
How does this prevent corp-hopping to evade wars? |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:39:00 -
[150] - Quote
Axl Borlara wrote:[quote=Nekopyat]
"Casual indy players" in their safe high-sec don't appear to have any means of losing ISK. So why don't you have lots? If you aren't losing ISK but aren't making much either - maybe you should look at what you are trying to achieve?
Achieve? I am playing a game.
As for loosing ISK, there are still plenty of ways to loose it in high sec. We can start with wardecs as they currently are (a year or so ago lost a tower and frighter to that, still have not saved up enough to replace it), there are suicide ganks, there are NPCs (yes yes, we all know uber mission runners never loose a ship, but I don't play much so I suck and make mistakes), there is also planning for the future (sometimes badly, I have a whole hanger full of near worthless BPOs), etc. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |